The debate over the historical meaning of the second amendment is one that has been raging since the 1960's. It is the job of many skilled historians to discern the sometimes unclear meaning of the words in our constitution. If there is ever a consensus among that group, it is of even further importance to decide if the constitution should be taken at face value in its historical context, or if it should be adapted for an evolving, modern society. Proponents of second amendment rights often interpret the meaning as applying to an individual's right to bear arms for the purpose of protection. This interpretation has been upheld by Justice Scalia who is quite well known for ruling in favor of the historical context of the constitution. Justice Scalia is not in favor of reinterpreting the constitution to uncover how it might apply to a modern society. Proponents of gun-control find the second amendment to be concerned with the society in which our country was founded over 200 years ago, mainly the idea that this amendment refers to the right of the people to form militias for the common defense, which was a reasonable assertion during the revolutionary era in our country's history. Many others believe that regardless of the historical context of the second amendment, our current government should be concerned with the forward progress of our society and the protection of the citizens of our country.
Whichever side of the argument you happen to be on, one thing is clear, the policies that are currently in effect in our country are not sufficient in protecting the public from those that mean to do harm with firearms. Two-thirds of homicides in our country are committed with firearms. One might argue that without firearms, criminals would find another way to attack, but the problem with this argument is that others modes of violence are less effective. It is fairly easy to shoot someone from a long distance with a firearm and inflict a large amount of damage. It is much more difficult to inflict that same amount of damage with a different weapon at a similar distance. Only thirty-three percent of homicides are carried out sans firearm. This provides for an interesting correlation. One might deduce that not only are crimes with firearms increasing, but they are also becoming more deadly as guns, in and of themselves, become more efficient.
Our historical predecessors certainly could not have known that in 2014 criminals would have access to semi-automatic weapons and sniper rifles. Society has changed. Hunting and farming on a personal level is no longer our primary means of obtaining food, and our democratic government has progressed to a point where forming a militia for common defense is infeasible. Military intelligence is past the point of fearing public retribution. Those who follow Justice Scalia's views on the second amendment have one valid point: a gun can protect your family against those who wish to do harm against you. This is a true fact. However, households which maintain firearms are three times more likely to harm an innocent family member than an intruder. Both statistics and psychology dictate that having a firearm in your home decreases overall safety.
There is also an ever-escalating dilemma when it comes to gun-control. Gun laws cannot have a long-lasting positive effect if they are not imposed on a national level. Statistical analysis has shown time and again that whenever a state or city within the continental United States issues a strict gun control law, there in an immediate reduction in both firearm-related and general crime which gradually increases as guns are smuggled back into the area from nearby states/cities which do not have similar laws. This creates an imbalance in the "system" whereby criminals are able to obtain firearms and law-abiding citizens are not. This scenario further enables the idea that citizens need guns for protection. If you combine this with the fact that the process of purchasing a gun is very loosely regulated in our capitalist economy, it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the absence of increasingly unfavorable federal mandates, nationwide reduction in gun violence is not possible.
At this point in my argument, the debate on this issue comes down to philosophy. Is it EVER okay to intentionally hurt another human being? Many would say that, yes, it is okay to do so in order to protect yourself or your family. Their intentions seem justified to most, and I have often found myself pondering my own ability to refrain from this reaction. But, as painful as the idea is to me, and as much as I would like to always be able to prevent harm against myself or my family, I simply cannot condone the use of violence in any circumstance. Yes, I could thwart a criminal with a gun. I'm actually quite skilled with most weapons. But the deepest part of my soul tells me that hurting another human being, for any reason, is just wrong. My dear husband has the complete opposite view from me, so I take solace in knowing that my children will grow up with the ability to make their own decisions on the subject, but I cannot place justifications along the way whenever it would be beneficial to me. I have suffered from misdeeds in the past, and I am sure to encounter more along the way. I plan to cry and be fearful at the injustice in the world. Throughout it all, the one attribute I hope to never lose is my ability to understand and forgive others. I pray that terrible violence never happens against my family, and if it does, I pray that I will maintain my love for humanity and seek to forgive those that do harm.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Friday, May 2, 2014
Government Education Reform: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Ah, the government regulation of our education system: the sharp, penetrating thorn in my side. To be clear, I am not opposed to the conceptual idea of federally regulated education. It is important to have a standard by which we and our children may compare our progress through primary and secondary schooling. Whether or not our government is capable of producing this system is a debate for another time. My argument is against current government initiatives that have taken this conceptual masterpiece and transformed it into cataclysmic motel art. Since the most recent implementation in public education is the Common Core program, that is where I will focus my argument.
In order to discuss the good and bad ideas in Common Core, we must first address its most fundamental goal. The central idea in Common Core is to provide a building-block pathway in English, Literacy, and Mathematics throughout a student's primary education process that will lead them to be successful in their secondary education endeavors. National participation is not mandated, however, it would ensure consistency among those who relocate to new schools. This is a great idea. I've been that student who relocated to a new school and had no idea what was being taught because I had been learning something else entirely. But as with every great idea, one must be able to test, analyze, correct, retest, reanalyze, (lather, rinse, repeat) and implement. These steps rarely happen, and here is why: we are a country of very impatient people seeking immediate results from a complicated system.
It's easy to get swept away in the tide of angry, frustrated, sometimes desperate parents who seek answers for our ever-failing education system. Our government representatives hear those desperate pleas, and in order to both assuage the concerns of their constituents and remain in their elected positions, they swiftly climb the executive ladder and achieve what we want: Common Core. There is no time to slowly implement these standards into the system over a carefully monitored, flexible period of time. What is written must be in stone lest our frustrated parents lash out when scores do not increase dramatically within one school term. Cranking out education reform like a sausage link inevitably leads to shortcomings in the system.
As I stated before, the goal of preparing college-bound students is a worthy one. Common core, if started in kindergarten and followed through, is a great program. It teaches a few core principals and then builds upon those each year, enforcing a deeper understanding of the material. This is great for students who plan to attend college. College. College-bound. We hear those words a lot in Common Core. I believe that the states who stick with this program, provided it isn't replaced by another one next year, (remember the frustrated parents?) will eventually achieve success. Eventually. The very young students who aren't starting out below the Common Core standard will likely be more prepared and successful in college. All children will definitely be going to college, right?
Here is where I become critical of this program and others before it. All children are not the same. Many will follow this path to college. They will achieve great success. Others will be excited to do the same, but will not have the funding to attend a University. Tuition prices aren't exactly dropping, so I imagine by the time our successful Common Core graduates send in their application packets, it will be quite difficult to afford. Instead, they will attend a technical college or learn a trade. Our remaining graduates will find jobs that do not require degrees. Some of them will still climb the ladder to success. Many of them will not. So, our end result is not much different than it has been historically. We have provided an opportunity for a superior education, provided the student comes from a privileged, English-speaking family and is of greater than or equal to average intelligence. We haven't raised the number of available scholarships. We haven't lowered tuition. We have in fact done nothing to brighten our children's futures. There is little purpose in creating a program with the core value of preparing for college when the only students who stand to benefit are those who would have done moderately well to begin with. Other countries have instituted programs that cater to persons from varying environments. For example, in Finland you may attend a variety of free post-secondary education schools which provide a meal plan, daycare, and transportation at no cost to the student. Finland currently leads the globe in education, whereas the United States ranks in the bottom one-third of developed countries.
There is no acceptable reason for our country to rank so poorly. I realize there is a national budget and money must be appropriated to other departments, but what our government fails to realize is that by not allocating enough funds toward education, those students who might otherwise go on to universities and learn a valuable skill that could influence our country in a positive way are instead working minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay their bills. If there was a promise of free secondary education with the amenities previously mentioned in Finland, more lower and middle class students would be motivated to work hard and make something more out of their lives, which would in turn decrease crime-related and welfare costs. We need a nation full of more highly educated, hard-working citizens now more than ever. Climate change, energy deficits and resource abundance problems are not going to fix themselves.
We have yet to even scratch the surface on budget cuts to education programs, low standards in teacher qualifications, low pay for educators, rising costs of tuition, incorporating programs for non-English-speaking students, non-traditional family backgrounds, the rise in mentally disabled children in our education system, standardized testing... I could go on, but my point is this: There is no current, workable, government-regulated program that can take the time to address all the flaws in our education system.
If our children follow through with this program without addressing the bigger problems within the public education system, we are doing a disservice to our country. Instead of implementing a program that provides little future benefit to lower and middle class families, increase the budget for public education; provide schools with ample resources and materials; pay teachers better and be more picky about their qualifications; hire more teachers so that children have more time to ask questions and get help; feed students healthier foods that sustain their bodies throughout the day; provide an environment and system that encourages a desire for educational growth and promises that each child has the opportunity to choose the best path for themselves. Over time if we are patient and dedicated enough, we will produce this amazing system. Citizens are more powerful than they know. Write and call your senators. Send emails to the schools. Attend school board meetings. Make your voice heard, and when the time comes, get out and VOTE YES on the proposed resolutions. No change will ever come if we fail to participate in this very important civil duty. Until that time comes, I would encourage you to take the time to search for a school that fits the needs and learning style of your children. Take an active role in their education. Don't be afraid to ask questions and make suggestions. If you are looking for a suggestion, I'm a huge advocate of the Montessori approach.
I believe that children actively seek out knowledge when provided with the time and resources, and nurturing their curiosity with gentle direction leads to more independence and confidence in their skills. When they are able to touch, manipulate, hear, see, and smell their education, it will naturally lead them to success. There are so many more things I could say, but I'll leave you with this: Success isn't a score; it is a unique quality inside each one of us.
In order to discuss the good and bad ideas in Common Core, we must first address its most fundamental goal. The central idea in Common Core is to provide a building-block pathway in English, Literacy, and Mathematics throughout a student's primary education process that will lead them to be successful in their secondary education endeavors. National participation is not mandated, however, it would ensure consistency among those who relocate to new schools. This is a great idea. I've been that student who relocated to a new school and had no idea what was being taught because I had been learning something else entirely. But as with every great idea, one must be able to test, analyze, correct, retest, reanalyze, (lather, rinse, repeat) and implement. These steps rarely happen, and here is why: we are a country of very impatient people seeking immediate results from a complicated system.
It's easy to get swept away in the tide of angry, frustrated, sometimes desperate parents who seek answers for our ever-failing education system. Our government representatives hear those desperate pleas, and in order to both assuage the concerns of their constituents and remain in their elected positions, they swiftly climb the executive ladder and achieve what we want: Common Core. There is no time to slowly implement these standards into the system over a carefully monitored, flexible period of time. What is written must be in stone lest our frustrated parents lash out when scores do not increase dramatically within one school term. Cranking out education reform like a sausage link inevitably leads to shortcomings in the system.
As I stated before, the goal of preparing college-bound students is a worthy one. Common core, if started in kindergarten and followed through, is a great program. It teaches a few core principals and then builds upon those each year, enforcing a deeper understanding of the material. This is great for students who plan to attend college. College. College-bound. We hear those words a lot in Common Core. I believe that the states who stick with this program, provided it isn't replaced by another one next year, (remember the frustrated parents?) will eventually achieve success. Eventually. The very young students who aren't starting out below the Common Core standard will likely be more prepared and successful in college. All children will definitely be going to college, right?
Here is where I become critical of this program and others before it. All children are not the same. Many will follow this path to college. They will achieve great success. Others will be excited to do the same, but will not have the funding to attend a University. Tuition prices aren't exactly dropping, so I imagine by the time our successful Common Core graduates send in their application packets, it will be quite difficult to afford. Instead, they will attend a technical college or learn a trade. Our remaining graduates will find jobs that do not require degrees. Some of them will still climb the ladder to success. Many of them will not. So, our end result is not much different than it has been historically. We have provided an opportunity for a superior education, provided the student comes from a privileged, English-speaking family and is of greater than or equal to average intelligence. We haven't raised the number of available scholarships. We haven't lowered tuition. We have in fact done nothing to brighten our children's futures. There is little purpose in creating a program with the core value of preparing for college when the only students who stand to benefit are those who would have done moderately well to begin with. Other countries have instituted programs that cater to persons from varying environments. For example, in Finland you may attend a variety of free post-secondary education schools which provide a meal plan, daycare, and transportation at no cost to the student. Finland currently leads the globe in education, whereas the United States ranks in the bottom one-third of developed countries.
There is no acceptable reason for our country to rank so poorly. I realize there is a national budget and money must be appropriated to other departments, but what our government fails to realize is that by not allocating enough funds toward education, those students who might otherwise go on to universities and learn a valuable skill that could influence our country in a positive way are instead working minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay their bills. If there was a promise of free secondary education with the amenities previously mentioned in Finland, more lower and middle class students would be motivated to work hard and make something more out of their lives, which would in turn decrease crime-related and welfare costs. We need a nation full of more highly educated, hard-working citizens now more than ever. Climate change, energy deficits and resource abundance problems are not going to fix themselves.
We have yet to even scratch the surface on budget cuts to education programs, low standards in teacher qualifications, low pay for educators, rising costs of tuition, incorporating programs for non-English-speaking students, non-traditional family backgrounds, the rise in mentally disabled children in our education system, standardized testing... I could go on, but my point is this: There is no current, workable, government-regulated program that can take the time to address all the flaws in our education system.
If our children follow through with this program without addressing the bigger problems within the public education system, we are doing a disservice to our country. Instead of implementing a program that provides little future benefit to lower and middle class families, increase the budget for public education; provide schools with ample resources and materials; pay teachers better and be more picky about their qualifications; hire more teachers so that children have more time to ask questions and get help; feed students healthier foods that sustain their bodies throughout the day; provide an environment and system that encourages a desire for educational growth and promises that each child has the opportunity to choose the best path for themselves. Over time if we are patient and dedicated enough, we will produce this amazing system. Citizens are more powerful than they know. Write and call your senators. Send emails to the schools. Attend school board meetings. Make your voice heard, and when the time comes, get out and VOTE YES on the proposed resolutions. No change will ever come if we fail to participate in this very important civil duty. Until that time comes, I would encourage you to take the time to search for a school that fits the needs and learning style of your children. Take an active role in their education. Don't be afraid to ask questions and make suggestions. If you are looking for a suggestion, I'm a huge advocate of the Montessori approach.
I believe that children actively seek out knowledge when provided with the time and resources, and nurturing their curiosity with gentle direction leads to more independence and confidence in their skills. When they are able to touch, manipulate, hear, see, and smell their education, it will naturally lead them to success. There are so many more things I could say, but I'll leave you with this: Success isn't a score; it is a unique quality inside each one of us.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
To Be Or Not To Be... Married
It's time to begin the descent of my fan base with my first highly controversial post.
I live in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Eighty-four percent of our population is caucasian; seventy-six percent of our population is LDS.; we have below average crime in every category. For the most part, it is a nice town with nice people. But underneath the white, religious, middle class, smiling faces wages a war of epic proportions. The war against homosexuality.
At the very core of the LDS faith, we have a prophet. President Monson is the man we look to when it comes to matters like homosexuality, and prophets before him have maintained his same teachings. Our church stands firmly with him against homosexuality as an innate condition and has no qualms about asserting that its opinion shall never change. The LDS faith believes that marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman, and that sexual acts are only to be committed within the sanctity of that ordinance. And this is why I'm not very good at being Mormon. If you are easily offended, it is okay to click the little "x" on your browser tab and continue on with more agreeable reading. It won't bother me in the slightest. However, for those of you who are interested in learning why someone of the LDS faith stands so strongly for something that her church condemns, continue on and feel welcome to question me afterwards.
I didn't always support gay rights. I grew up in Alabama, the core of the bible belt, so to speak. My family and my religion dictated that I should be against homosexuality, and being the impressionable kid that I was, I believed them. It wasn't until I left home and joined the military that I started to question the teachings I grew up with. It turns out that rebel flags really are offensive, not patriotic; it isn't necessary to start a sentence with, "I'm not racist, but..."; fried food is pretty bad for you no matter how delicious it is, and being gay doesn't make you a bad person who doesn't deserve love or happiness. So, what is it that made me change my mind?
The military was a big part of my transition. After years of very little diversity, I was finally meeting people from all over the world, and I was enthralled by how different everyone was. I ended up with a good friend in the Army who was gay. She faced many challenges within the military. I'm pretty sure I was the only person aware of her sexual orientation. She did a very good job hiding it. I was saddened by her situation. She was choosing to sacrifice more for her country than most, and yet nobody could know who she really was. If anyone were to find out, she would be forced to leave the military and denied the opportunity to serve her country. At this point, I began to recognize the inequality faced by those in the gay community, but I still believed that homosexuality was against God's plan and did not support equal rights for the gay community.
Then I met Michael. We fell in love, got married, started a family. But we were/are very different people with varying opinions on many subjects. If you're lucky, like me, you will spend your life with someone who takes the time to help you grow emotionally, spiritually, physically, etc. And this is where my new opinions came from. Years of ever-finely tuned conversations with an amazing man, followed by personally searching for the truth have brought me to realize a few things:
1. We live in a country that was founded upon the basis of religious freedom. To say that your religious beliefs should dictate the outcome of our political rights is an egregious mistake. One cannot implement law based on the desire of one religion when so many are represented in our country.
2. It isn't a question of whether or not gay people should be given the right to get married, but rather a question of whether or not we should have the power to take that right away. Our constitution states that all men are created equal, yet certain people within our government have used unlawful religious reasons to take equal rights away from an entire demographic.
(These first two are strictly political. Now, let's face religion.)
3. Homosexuality, although not that exact term, is mentioned only seven times in over thirty-one-thousand bible verses. It seems relative to me that it is mentioned so little, and should probably give us an idea of exactly how important it is in the grand scheme of things.
4. "Further, the Bible is not a contract, or a set of instructions, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific. It is not a rulebook for being Christian. It is instead a widely varying collection of poetry, history, proverbs, moral directives, parables, letters and wondrous visions. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take any small section of the Bible out of its own context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of its meaning." Any verse can be taken out of historical context and expanded upon. It happens all the time. Unless you are willing to explore the history of a passage and maintain a non-biased attitude toward the text, you should not attempt to discern its meaning.
5. The Bible's first four mentions of homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.
While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament." Here are the three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Corinthians 6:9-10
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. --1 Timothy 1:9-10:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. --Romans 1:26-27
In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight. The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:
"...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic."
This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts -- as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
6. "It is also critical to our reading of the New Testament's three passages to understand that while of course Paul knew about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul's time was "out"; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no concept of an entire population of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.
We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smart phones or iPads. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between heterosexuals. If we are to rely on the Bible, then we must take its text as it is. It does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself -- much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians therefore have no Bible-based moral justification for themselves condemning such acts."
Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of gay marriage.
Okay, I know that this is a long post with a lot of information, and I do apologize for that. If you can hang on just a little longer, I'll sum things up. I am Mormon. I love my church, and I respect those who attempt to follow every rule set forth for them by the church. At the same time, I am not a person who blindly follows any rule. I research; I learn the historical and cultural environment in which doctrine is put forth. If evidence can be found that supports the teachings of the church, I support them 100%. However, if I find in my research that there is another explanation which provides for a more in-depth, non-biased understanding of a passage, then I will not support the current teaching. God will never put forth any doctrine that requires you to choose between your faith in Him and your love for your fellow human being. To do so would be an injustice. Christ's main focus, which is repeated numerous times in the new testament is to love one another. He never defines the way in which we should express our love.
Finally, there has been no doctrine put forth since the new testament that addresses homosexuality in any way. All instances of any church condemning this practice arises from those seven passages in the bible, four of which we have been told not to follow, that can be explained by the dominating, militaristic practices of the time. I pray that in our near future, we may set aside our disdain for those who express themselves differently than we do, and learn to exhibit the principle that was most dear to our Savior: Love One Another.
I live in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Eighty-four percent of our population is caucasian; seventy-six percent of our population is LDS.; we have below average crime in every category. For the most part, it is a nice town with nice people. But underneath the white, religious, middle class, smiling faces wages a war of epic proportions. The war against homosexuality.
At the very core of the LDS faith, we have a prophet. President Monson is the man we look to when it comes to matters like homosexuality, and prophets before him have maintained his same teachings. Our church stands firmly with him against homosexuality as an innate condition and has no qualms about asserting that its opinion shall never change. The LDS faith believes that marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman, and that sexual acts are only to be committed within the sanctity of that ordinance. And this is why I'm not very good at being Mormon. If you are easily offended, it is okay to click the little "x" on your browser tab and continue on with more agreeable reading. It won't bother me in the slightest. However, for those of you who are interested in learning why someone of the LDS faith stands so strongly for something that her church condemns, continue on and feel welcome to question me afterwards.
I didn't always support gay rights. I grew up in Alabama, the core of the bible belt, so to speak. My family and my religion dictated that I should be against homosexuality, and being the impressionable kid that I was, I believed them. It wasn't until I left home and joined the military that I started to question the teachings I grew up with. It turns out that rebel flags really are offensive, not patriotic; it isn't necessary to start a sentence with, "I'm not racist, but..."; fried food is pretty bad for you no matter how delicious it is, and being gay doesn't make you a bad person who doesn't deserve love or happiness. So, what is it that made me change my mind?
The military was a big part of my transition. After years of very little diversity, I was finally meeting people from all over the world, and I was enthralled by how different everyone was. I ended up with a good friend in the Army who was gay. She faced many challenges within the military. I'm pretty sure I was the only person aware of her sexual orientation. She did a very good job hiding it. I was saddened by her situation. She was choosing to sacrifice more for her country than most, and yet nobody could know who she really was. If anyone were to find out, she would be forced to leave the military and denied the opportunity to serve her country. At this point, I began to recognize the inequality faced by those in the gay community, but I still believed that homosexuality was against God's plan and did not support equal rights for the gay community.
Then I met Michael. We fell in love, got married, started a family. But we were/are very different people with varying opinions on many subjects. If you're lucky, like me, you will spend your life with someone who takes the time to help you grow emotionally, spiritually, physically, etc. And this is where my new opinions came from. Years of ever-finely tuned conversations with an amazing man, followed by personally searching for the truth have brought me to realize a few things:
1. We live in a country that was founded upon the basis of religious freedom. To say that your religious beliefs should dictate the outcome of our political rights is an egregious mistake. One cannot implement law based on the desire of one religion when so many are represented in our country.
2. It isn't a question of whether or not gay people should be given the right to get married, but rather a question of whether or not we should have the power to take that right away. Our constitution states that all men are created equal, yet certain people within our government have used unlawful religious reasons to take equal rights away from an entire demographic.
(These first two are strictly political. Now, let's face religion.)
3. Homosexuality, although not that exact term, is mentioned only seven times in over thirty-one-thousand bible verses. It seems relative to me that it is mentioned so little, and should probably give us an idea of exactly how important it is in the grand scheme of things.
4. "Further, the Bible is not a contract, or a set of instructions, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific. It is not a rulebook for being Christian. It is instead a widely varying collection of poetry, history, proverbs, moral directives, parables, letters and wondrous visions. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take any small section of the Bible out of its own context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of its meaning." Any verse can be taken out of historical context and expanded upon. It happens all the time. Unless you are willing to explore the history of a passage and maintain a non-biased attitude toward the text, you should not attempt to discern its meaning.
5. The Bible's first four mentions of homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.
While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament." Here are the three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Corinthians 6:9-10
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. --1 Timothy 1:9-10:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. --Romans 1:26-27
In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight. The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:
"...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic."
This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts -- as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
6. "It is also critical to our reading of the New Testament's three passages to understand that while of course Paul knew about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul's time was "out"; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no concept of an entire population of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.
We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smart phones or iPads. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between heterosexuals. If we are to rely on the Bible, then we must take its text as it is. It does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself -- much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians therefore have no Bible-based moral justification for themselves condemning such acts."
Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of gay marriage.
Okay, I know that this is a long post with a lot of information, and I do apologize for that. If you can hang on just a little longer, I'll sum things up. I am Mormon. I love my church, and I respect those who attempt to follow every rule set forth for them by the church. At the same time, I am not a person who blindly follows any rule. I research; I learn the historical and cultural environment in which doctrine is put forth. If evidence can be found that supports the teachings of the church, I support them 100%. However, if I find in my research that there is another explanation which provides for a more in-depth, non-biased understanding of a passage, then I will not support the current teaching. God will never put forth any doctrine that requires you to choose between your faith in Him and your love for your fellow human being. To do so would be an injustice. Christ's main focus, which is repeated numerous times in the new testament is to love one another. He never defines the way in which we should express our love.
Finally, there has been no doctrine put forth since the new testament that addresses homosexuality in any way. All instances of any church condemning this practice arises from those seven passages in the bible, four of which we have been told not to follow, that can be explained by the dominating, militaristic practices of the time. I pray that in our near future, we may set aside our disdain for those who express themselves differently than we do, and learn to exhibit the principle that was most dear to our Savior: Love One Another.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
As for me, I Will Bring Peace
Many of my more recent acquaintances may be unaware that I am a military veteran. I like to get dressed up, wear makeup, and do girly things like scrap-booking and baking. I'm anti-gun, pro-choice, pro gay rights. I don't believe that violence is the answer to any problem, and I'm just about as left-sided as people come. That is who I am now. That is not who I was 10 years ago.
I signed up for the Army when I was 17 years old. I was a pretty smart kid who got all A's and had plenty of friends who were heading off to college. My high school guidance counselor wanted me to go to college like my peers. I told everyone that joining the Army and being an air traffic controller was my dream because I didn't want them to know that my parents wouldn't give me the $40 to take the ACT or drive me the 20 miles to the community college where it was to be taken. Without an ACT score, there was really no point in applying to any colleges, so I joined the Army.
The more I told others about my "dream," the more of a reality it became. By the time I left for basic training, I had convinced myself that this was the best decision I would ever make. I was going to kick ass and be an awesome soldier. Basic training was a breeze. I was naturally good at everything we did. I achieved every high award that one could. Expert in weapons, PT badge, certificates of achievement for field work. And as I progressed through AIT and on to my permanent duty station, I continued to win every award. I was highest in my class, soldier of the month, quarter, and year. I earned three air traffic control ratings in my first seven months on the job. I was really, really good at being a soldier.
Then one night while I was working the late shift at my tower, we had an incident. An instructor pilot called our tower from an unknown location. The electronics in his helicopter were malfunctioning, and he and the student pilot were lost. There were no lights, no directional devices, one engine was shutting down. No problem! We had been trained for this scenario. We asked for his last known coordinates, number of people on board, how much fuel was remaining, if he could see any landmarks outside. We turned up our runway lights as high as they could go to increase visibility and dispatched the crash rescue team with all his information. There wasn't a doubt in my mind that everything would be fine.
Everything was not fine. The last transmission we received from the pilot was that his other engine didn't sound good, and he was going to try to set the helicopter down in the nearest field. I told him we would standby and that crash rescue was on its way, and that was the last time we spoke to him. Our company commander had us shut down the tower on time and go home. There wasn't anything else we could do anyway. A few days later we learned that the helicopter had crashed, and the instructor pilot had died. The student pilot survived, but was in a nearby hospital. My immediate response was to suck it up and go on because "I'm a soldier, and I don't have time to let my emotions get in my way." I tried this approach for a few weeks.
After many restless nights filled with tears and uncertainty, I decided that I wanted to be different. I didn't want to be a part of the military anymore. I spent the next few years doing a lot of soul-searching and eventually came to realize that the only way to really defeat my enemies is to be a peaceful, loving person. One that is free of judgement and criticism. One that can see the value in each person despite whatever negative decisions they may make. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on this subject, and that is okay. They have their own values and circumstances, and I still love and support them. And despite my own decision to leave the military and focus my life toward peace, I still support our military because I believe they are doing what they believe is right.
I realize this post seems convoluted, but my main point is this: Choose to be a good person. Make your own standard of what is right and wrong. Be kind and honest, and most of all, follow what's in your heart. I did this, and despite how differently I believe than most of my friends, they still love and accept me, and support my life choices.
I signed up for the Army when I was 17 years old. I was a pretty smart kid who got all A's and had plenty of friends who were heading off to college. My high school guidance counselor wanted me to go to college like my peers. I told everyone that joining the Army and being an air traffic controller was my dream because I didn't want them to know that my parents wouldn't give me the $40 to take the ACT or drive me the 20 miles to the community college where it was to be taken. Without an ACT score, there was really no point in applying to any colleges, so I joined the Army.
The more I told others about my "dream," the more of a reality it became. By the time I left for basic training, I had convinced myself that this was the best decision I would ever make. I was going to kick ass and be an awesome soldier. Basic training was a breeze. I was naturally good at everything we did. I achieved every high award that one could. Expert in weapons, PT badge, certificates of achievement for field work. And as I progressed through AIT and on to my permanent duty station, I continued to win every award. I was highest in my class, soldier of the month, quarter, and year. I earned three air traffic control ratings in my first seven months on the job. I was really, really good at being a soldier.
Then one night while I was working the late shift at my tower, we had an incident. An instructor pilot called our tower from an unknown location. The electronics in his helicopter were malfunctioning, and he and the student pilot were lost. There were no lights, no directional devices, one engine was shutting down. No problem! We had been trained for this scenario. We asked for his last known coordinates, number of people on board, how much fuel was remaining, if he could see any landmarks outside. We turned up our runway lights as high as they could go to increase visibility and dispatched the crash rescue team with all his information. There wasn't a doubt in my mind that everything would be fine.
Everything was not fine. The last transmission we received from the pilot was that his other engine didn't sound good, and he was going to try to set the helicopter down in the nearest field. I told him we would standby and that crash rescue was on its way, and that was the last time we spoke to him. Our company commander had us shut down the tower on time and go home. There wasn't anything else we could do anyway. A few days later we learned that the helicopter had crashed, and the instructor pilot had died. The student pilot survived, but was in a nearby hospital. My immediate response was to suck it up and go on because "I'm a soldier, and I don't have time to let my emotions get in my way." I tried this approach for a few weeks.
After many restless nights filled with tears and uncertainty, I decided that I wanted to be different. I didn't want to be a part of the military anymore. I spent the next few years doing a lot of soul-searching and eventually came to realize that the only way to really defeat my enemies is to be a peaceful, loving person. One that is free of judgement and criticism. One that can see the value in each person despite whatever negative decisions they may make. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on this subject, and that is okay. They have their own values and circumstances, and I still love and support them. And despite my own decision to leave the military and focus my life toward peace, I still support our military because I believe they are doing what they believe is right.
I realize this post seems convoluted, but my main point is this: Choose to be a good person. Make your own standard of what is right and wrong. Be kind and honest, and most of all, follow what's in your heart. I did this, and despite how differently I believe than most of my friends, they still love and accept me, and support my life choices.
Friday, April 18, 2014
It's Really Not That Hard
I have a lot of lady friends who are mothers; I have a lot of lady friends who are not. I often hear the non-mother friends make comments about how parenting isn't as hard as we make it out to be, and I immediately go on the defensive. "You have no idea what you're talking about!" "Have you ever stayed up for 48 hours with a screaming baby?" I could go on for quite a while with the different aspects of parenting that I have found to be difficult. Last night, however, I came to realize that although my non-mother friends may not understand exactly what my life looks like on a day-to-day basis, they kind of have a good point. Why are we making everything so hard? The following timeline is an idea of the typical day at my house:
I'm tired in the morning. I have never been a morning person. I will never become a morning person. This is a fact about myself that I know. My children wake up between five and eight every morning and stand at my bedroom doorway asking for various things while I growl and try to convince myself that they actually need breakfast. I can't take the easy route by giving them sugary cereal and hopping back into bed. So, what is a mom to do? You get up, slice some fruit, make a bowl of oatmeal, squeeze some orange juice. There! The munchkins have a healthy start to their day. The entire process of waking up and making this breakfast only took about 30 minutes. If we average waking up at 7am and going to bed at 11pm, then I have 15 hours and 30 minutes left in my day.
If I was smart and made enough breakfast for myself, too, then the next hour is spent eating, getting ready, and taking the boys to school. I get back home around 830am. I now have 14 hours and 30 minutes left.
I no longer have any babies at home, so from 830am until 1100am, my time is my own. I usually sit around on my computer, watch television, make wishlists for items I don't really need, etc. Some days I have meetings and errands during this time, too. Some days I don't. Eleven o'clock finally rolls around and I head to the school. I now have 12 hours remaining.
Independent of the day of the week, I will be involved is some school-realted activity for the next couple of hours, following which I will go pick up my children. We get home around 345pm. I now have seven hours and fifteen minutes.
Upon getting home, everyone in my house is hungry, so I make them food. Then I send the children downstairs to play for a while so I can tend to whatever yard work needs to be done. They fight over one thing or another the entire time and drive everyone crazy, which in turn, causes my yard work to last twice as long as it should have. I come back inside around 530pm. There are five and a half hours left.
It's now time to start making dinner. There is usually a dinner schedule on the refrigerator, and if I made a shopping list when I went to the grocery store on Saturday, I should have all the ingredients I need. The next hour is spent making dinner, and the following thirty minutes is spent eating it. It is now about seven o'clock, and I have four hours left in my day.
This is the perfect time to start giving relaxing lavender baths and massages before the boys go to bed. Danny gets his bath first while I watch Phillip play a video game. Phillip goes next while Danny and I play angry birds games. Both baths last about 30 minutes each, so let's say we finish at eight o'clock. It is time to put the boys in bed, and I have three hours left.
Danny goes to bed first. He gets a little chat about his day, a story, and a song. Phillip then gets the same routine. This doesn't take long. Thirty minutes at the most. It is now eight-thirty, and I have two and a half hours left.
The remainder of my time is spent with massage appointments, cleaning, and studying. Sometimes I make it into bed at eleven. Sometimes I don't. We then go to sleep and start the day all over again in the morning.
Now, a typical day doesn't sound all that hard. When everything goes according to what I expect, parenting is actually quite easy. So, to my non-mother friends, this is the part where I tell you that yes, it isn't that hard. Not all the time. Most days are quite lovely. It's the non-typical days that challenge us. It's when we already have our 16 hours per day scheduled, and somehow have to find a way to fit in a two hour trip to the doctor. It's the responsibility of maintaining a non-biased opinion when your seven-year-old child asks you out-of-the-blue questions about religion and politics. It's consoling your child after he has been picked on either at school or in public, and using the experience to further develop his confidence instead of destroying it. It's all the little things that go along with producing an intelligent, capable, independent, productive human being that will one day become a credit to society.
So, no, being a parent isn't hard. Most people are more than capable of producing viable offspring and keeping them alive. But being a mother who teaches her children to see the potential in every situation, plays silly made-up games with them, helps them overcome challenges that seem impossible, and who can create time within a day when every minute has already been allocated is indeed a challenge.
I'm tired in the morning. I have never been a morning person. I will never become a morning person. This is a fact about myself that I know. My children wake up between five and eight every morning and stand at my bedroom doorway asking for various things while I growl and try to convince myself that they actually need breakfast. I can't take the easy route by giving them sugary cereal and hopping back into bed. So, what is a mom to do? You get up, slice some fruit, make a bowl of oatmeal, squeeze some orange juice. There! The munchkins have a healthy start to their day. The entire process of waking up and making this breakfast only took about 30 minutes. If we average waking up at 7am and going to bed at 11pm, then I have 15 hours and 30 minutes left in my day.
If I was smart and made enough breakfast for myself, too, then the next hour is spent eating, getting ready, and taking the boys to school. I get back home around 830am. I now have 14 hours and 30 minutes left.
I no longer have any babies at home, so from 830am until 1100am, my time is my own. I usually sit around on my computer, watch television, make wishlists for items I don't really need, etc. Some days I have meetings and errands during this time, too. Some days I don't. Eleven o'clock finally rolls around and I head to the school. I now have 12 hours remaining.
Independent of the day of the week, I will be involved is some school-realted activity for the next couple of hours, following which I will go pick up my children. We get home around 345pm. I now have seven hours and fifteen minutes.
Upon getting home, everyone in my house is hungry, so I make them food. Then I send the children downstairs to play for a while so I can tend to whatever yard work needs to be done. They fight over one thing or another the entire time and drive everyone crazy, which in turn, causes my yard work to last twice as long as it should have. I come back inside around 530pm. There are five and a half hours left.
It's now time to start making dinner. There is usually a dinner schedule on the refrigerator, and if I made a shopping list when I went to the grocery store on Saturday, I should have all the ingredients I need. The next hour is spent making dinner, and the following thirty minutes is spent eating it. It is now about seven o'clock, and I have four hours left in my day.
This is the perfect time to start giving relaxing lavender baths and massages before the boys go to bed. Danny gets his bath first while I watch Phillip play a video game. Phillip goes next while Danny and I play angry birds games. Both baths last about 30 minutes each, so let's say we finish at eight o'clock. It is time to put the boys in bed, and I have three hours left.
Danny goes to bed first. He gets a little chat about his day, a story, and a song. Phillip then gets the same routine. This doesn't take long. Thirty minutes at the most. It is now eight-thirty, and I have two and a half hours left.
The remainder of my time is spent with massage appointments, cleaning, and studying. Sometimes I make it into bed at eleven. Sometimes I don't. We then go to sleep and start the day all over again in the morning.
Now, a typical day doesn't sound all that hard. When everything goes according to what I expect, parenting is actually quite easy. So, to my non-mother friends, this is the part where I tell you that yes, it isn't that hard. Not all the time. Most days are quite lovely. It's the non-typical days that challenge us. It's when we already have our 16 hours per day scheduled, and somehow have to find a way to fit in a two hour trip to the doctor. It's the responsibility of maintaining a non-biased opinion when your seven-year-old child asks you out-of-the-blue questions about religion and politics. It's consoling your child after he has been picked on either at school or in public, and using the experience to further develop his confidence instead of destroying it. It's all the little things that go along with producing an intelligent, capable, independent, productive human being that will one day become a credit to society.
So, no, being a parent isn't hard. Most people are more than capable of producing viable offspring and keeping them alive. But being a mother who teaches her children to see the potential in every situation, plays silly made-up games with them, helps them overcome challenges that seem impossible, and who can create time within a day when every minute has already been allocated is indeed a challenge.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
The Little Tree That Could (Reposted from Facebook)
I originally posted this on Facebook in the summer of 2012, and I thought it would make a great first entry as we get to know each other. The tree has since been relocated.
"In the spring of 2010, just six short months after purchasing our beautiful first home, I began my first attempt at gardening. The previous owners of our house, or possibly those before them, planted a rose garden by the front steps. It's a beautiful garden with many colors and breeds of roses. As I pruned and plucked the old leaves and deteriorating rose buds from the bushes, I noticed something that seemed out of place. A lone sapling, no more than 10 inches tall, stood boldly in the front of the garden. I'm not much of a gardener, but if there's one thing I knew, it was that this tree would grow and block the sunlight and water to my rose bushes, eventually killing them. I couldn't let this evil tree destroy my precious flowers, so I took my shears and cut it's base in half. No more tree.
Winter came and passed, and behold, it was again time to tend to the roses. For a month or two, all was as it should have been. Then seemingly over night, just as boldly as it had done once before, a sapling began to grow from the dead trunk I sliced the year before. It seemed a matter of principle at this point that I should reign victorious over this pesky, sun-stealing enemy. Again, I took my shears. I made sure to cut as closely as possible to the ground. I was meticulous... flawless even. I won. The tree was gone forever, and my beautiful roses could flourish in their perfect, sunny location.
As odd as it may sound, I thought about this tree from time to time over the next winter. I imagined how resilient it must have been to have survived such a treacherous battle. I was saddened this spring when I began my yearly pruning, and the tree did not return. For a month I watched and waited, sure to see my nemesis, but there was no sign of him. He had left me for good. Gone to tree heaven to all the great oaks and redwoods with whom he surely belongs.
At the beginning of May, I went to check on my roses, and there he was. Standing one foot tall and victorious was the sapling I left for dead. What overwhelming will and strength stood before me! Despite my best efforts to tear him down, he lives. His scars are a reminder of the pain I put him through, but his triumph is a lesson in my life that I shouldn't soon forget. We struggle through this cruel, scary world. We see and hear of atrocities every day that seem worse than the day before. But, those of us who have a desire for life will not only survive, but we will live. We will be the examples that change other people. We will be the saplings who come back year after year building a strong base, a foundation of experience.
My prayer for you is that you will find the strength to rebuild. For every battle that tears you down, remember this sapling, who to this day is flourishing in my rose garden. Eight feet of tree in only three months. It's amazing what we can do if we try."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)